Who Lost the South China Sea?

The South China Sea is central to the contest for strategic influence in the larger Indo-Pacific region. Unless the US adopts a stronger policy to contain Chinese expansionism there, the widely shared vision of a free, open, and democratic-led Indo-Pacific will give way to an illiberal, repressive regional order.

SINGAPORE – US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has spoken out against China’s strategy of “intimidation and coercion” in the South China Sea, including the deployment of anti-ship missiles, surface-to-air missiles, and electronic jammers, and, more recently, the landing of nuclear-capable bomber aircraft at Woody Island. There are, Mattis warned, “consequences to China ignoring the international community.”

But what consequences? Two successive US administrations – Barack Obama’s and now Donald Trump’s – have failed to push back credibly against China’s expansionism in the South China Sea, which has accelerated despite a 2016 international arbitral tribunal ruling invalidating its territorial claims there. Instead, the US has relied on rhetoric or symbolic actions.

For example, the United States has disinvited China from this summer’s 26-country Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval exercise. The move has been played up as a potential indication that the US may finally be adopting a tougher approach toward China. Mattis himself has called the decision an “initial response” to China’s militarization of the South China Sea, which is twice the size of the Gulf of Mexico and 50% bigger than the Mediterranean Sea.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To continue reading, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Professor Chellaney's argument reminds me of the hysteria in the United States after the victory of the Communist forces in the Chinese civil war and the establishment of the People's Republic : «Who lost China ?» was the rallying cry as the US government tore itself apart and none of its desperate responses, not even the unleashing of the war on Korea, were successful in getting it back. The simple fact was that China was never the USA's to lose, and much shedding of blood and destruction of treasure could have been avoided had this been accepted in Washington. Now, nearly seven decades later, the same holds true today : the South China Sea is not the USA's to lose, and no amount of posturing about the so-called «Indo-Pacific» on the part of people like Professor Chellaney will change this fact a whit....

The borders in the South Chinese Sea have been contested for many decades now - and not only with China. If you want to blame the US it should primarily be for this ignoring this problem for so long.

I consider all those "Freedom of Navigation" operations of the US Navy as childish. Except for a few newsletter headlines they achieve nothing. What is needed is some kind of international agreement on the South Chinese Sea that protects the interests of the parties involved.

As usual and expected this author is spewing nonsense. If the US really wants to uphold international law the US should instead help China defend against the Philippines and Vietnam. And I am not joking at all. For anyone who are interested in the facts rather than propaganda, please read this article:

Brahma Chellaney blames the US under the Obama and the Trump administrations for turning a blind eye to China’s aggression in the South China Sea. Beijing’s startling effort to assert authority over virtually the entire body of waters has alarmed nearby countries. The South China Sea encompasses 1.35 million square miles, which is twice the size of the Gulf of Mexico and 50% bigger than the Mediterranean Sea. Every year more than $5tn in ship-borne trade passes through there. China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei all have competing claims in the region. Beijing has long been keen to control the South China Sea. In recent years, with sand and rock dredged from the ocean floor outcrops, atolls and reefs had been turned into sizable artificial islands for military purposes. This process has established facts on the ground that allows China to stake its claim to the region. Experts warn that the hotly contested waters have become a flashpoint with potentially serious global consequences.The author lashes out at the US failure “to push back credibly against China’s expansionism” in the South China Sea. Yet Washington says it does not take sides in territorial disputes, but has sent military ships and planes near disputed islands. Its "freedom of navigation" operations seek to ensure access to key shipping and air routes. Yet immense wealth is believed to lie beneath the sea in the form of unexploited minerals and oil and gas. It is also home to fishing grounds that supply the livelihoods of people across the region. Apart from laying hands on the material resources, China seeks to increase its sense of security, by controlling the maritime traffic off its long coast, and securing sea lanes to the open Pacific. Critics say China is in a process of overcoming historical grievances. Beijing says that its right to the area goes back centuries to when the Paracel and Spratly island chains were regarded as integral parts of the Chinese nation. In 1947 it issued a map detailing its claims, showing the two island groups falling entirely within its territory. Historical grievances justify many people in China to take a different view of their expansionist foreign policy. “In 10 years, our GDP will be bigger than the US, in 20 years our military spending will be equal to the US,” said Shen Dingli, one of China’s most prominent scholars for international relations at Fudan University. “Thirty to 40 years from now, our armed forces will be better than the US. Why would the US defend those rocks? When you have power, the world has to accept. The US is a superpower today, and it can do whatever it wants. When China is a superpower, the world will also have to accept.” From striving to become a power at least on par with the US, China’s goal is to lead the world by 2050, when it marks the centenary of its republic. The author says, the South China Sea “has been and will remain central to the contest for influence in the larger Indo-Pacific region. Thanks to US fecklessness, the widely shared vision of a free, open, and democratic-led Indo-Pacific could give way to an illiberal, repressive regional order, with China in full control.”In 2015, former defence secretary Ashton Carter vowed to frustrate any Chinese efforts to limit the navigation of American vessels in the South China Sea. “The United States will fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows, as we do all around the world,” during a speech in Pearl Harbour. “We will remain the principal security power in the Asia-Pacific for decades to come.” Obama had pushed hard to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement that would have excluded China. Right after he took office in January 2017 the free-trade averse Trump gutted the deal, which was a huge boon for China. He criticised the TPP harshly during the 2016 campaign, citing his “America First” agenda. Yet two months ago Trump signalled America’s possibility of rejoining the TPP as trade tensions between Washington and Beijing were rising. The author might get his satisfaction should Trump - unpredictable as he is - start a conflict with Beijing over the South China Sea.

First the author must know that the so-called SCS arbitration has nothing to do with the territories. The SCS Arbitration Award of July 12, 2016 specifically says in the Introduction No. 5 that: "The Convention, however, does not address the sovereignty of states over land territory. Accordingly, this Tribunal has not been asked to, and does not purport to, make any ruling as to which state enjoys sovereignty over land territory in the South China Sea, in particular with respect to the disputes concerning sovereignty over the Spratly Islands or Scarborough Shoal. None of the Tribunal's decisions on this Award are dependent on a finding of sovereignty, nor should anything in this Award be understood to imply a view with respect to questions of land sovereignty."Why only the Philippines and Vietnam feel “intimidation and coercion” among the South East Asian countries. Because these two countries illegally occupied China’s territories. According to international laws the Philippines does not have legal basis to claim the Spratly Islands & Scarborough Shoal, and the Philippines violated the UN Resolution 2625 sending military forces to illegally occupy some of the islands in the Spratly Islands and militarized the South China Sea in 1971. The Vietnam's prime minister, Phạm Văn Đồng, sent a formal note to China, stating that the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam respected the decision on the 12 nautical mile limit of territorial waters including China’s Paracel Islands & Spratly Islands in 1958. The US can do nothing but the so-called ‘FONOP.” Since the US has no legal grounds to stop China.

The Chinese took advantage of an Obama administration which had no bite whatsoever and the door was open to its expansionist plans. China will eventually spin off its own Pacific Rim currency and given the political and partisan self serving ways of Congress and the Senate, especially found among the Democrats, the Chinese look far into the future and the west has little to deter these plans.

Do not get too upset though for War looms ahead between Germany and Iran and you can bet it will engage many others so prepare for a far more nationalist Germany who will downsize the EU and the road is riddled with failures and the eventual demise of humanity in the third WW in about a 100 years!

Trump is doing a terrific job despite some Americans and perceptions of a number of Europeans, however a failed EU will lead to certain conflagration so the Chinese and their expansion is not our present priority. All must turn to Brussels and the changes in geopolitics which will also portray a far less stable Turkey which will as well cause disarray among nations throughout the Middle East.

China's move into the South China Sea is like the US move into the Caribbean at the end of the nineteenth century. It's more about protecting its own sea lanes rather than threatening those of others. The US can live with that so long as other regional states, like the Philippines and Vietnam, can.

Perhaps you are unaware that more than 60% of all trade between US allies passes through the SCS? Suppose China exacts, say, a 15% tariff, a sort of VAT, on those goods? The colonists went to war with the British Empire back in 1776 over less.

«Suppose China exacts, say, a 15% tariff, a sort of VAT, on those goods?» And suppose it does not ? Have you seen any credible evidence to support the odd notion that China attempts to impose such a tax ? Straw-man arguments in all honour, but this straw won't do to make bricks....

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.